[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[bhsmte]

Lol, that's not an answer. That is a question. But I'll answer it anyway. If something exists and is infinite, it does not have to be objective(within space/time) in order to exist. It just has to be unalterably true that it infinitely exists. <this is God

I still want an answer from you and True Scotsman about my previous question, otherwise I'm justified in accusing both of you of straw men arguments.

Hey, justify whatever you please.

Repeating; this is God and beg the question all you want. You have not supported your arguments and you have really been all over the place.

 

[True Scotsman]

Right the subject is us and the object is the singularity that must have existed before our universe existed. Problem is science is claiming this objective singularity is infinite, which means it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think an objective infinite singularity can somehow contradict its own existence and become an objective finite universe. Its still a problem even if the universe is infinite because how could an infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an infinite universe with time and space? These are real questions that should not be ignored.

No. For the, I think, third time I don't care about the singularity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my reasons for claiming certainty that there is no god. When I speak of objects I mean any and all objects we or any other consciousness perceives. My argument deals with the issue on a much more fundamental level than science. You seem hell bent on refuting something that you don't even understand. The argument that I presented refutes the claims of Christianity about a god so it is off the table as an option for the cause of the big bang. Whatever it was, and I don't claim to know and neither do scientists, but whatever it was it was not the god described by Christianity. My argument proves that.

 

[True Scotsman]

Lol, that's not an answer. That is a question. But I'll answer it anyway. If something exists and is infinite, it does not have to be objective(within space/time) in order to exist. It just has to be unalterably true that it infinitely exists. <this is God

I still want an answer from you and True Scotsman about my previous question, otherwise I'm justified in accusing both of you of straw men arguments.

No. That is not what it means to be objective. Objective means existing independent of any and all consciousness. Objectivity does not have anything to do with space and time or being infinite. You continue to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of these issues. The fact that we can imagine something that is infinite, eternal and exists outside of time does not make it possible. The imaginary is not admissible as evidence.

Now I've given you a valid argument with two sound premises. If an argument is valid and sound, is its conclusion still in question? Yes or no.

 

[Chany]

Right the subject is us and the object is the singularity that must have existed before our universe existed. Problem is science is claiming this objective singularity is infinite, which means it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think an objective infinite singularity can somehow contradict its own existence and become an objective finite universe. Its still a problem even if the universe is infinite because how could an infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an infinite universe with time and space? These are real questions that should not be ignored.

You are not getting the point.

What True Scotsman is arguing is that the idea of an immaterial consciousness without any external reference points is impossible. Conscious, defined by him, is the awareness of something; in order for some subject to be conscious, the subject has to be aware of an external object. There cannot be a consciousness without some external object because a consciousness, by definition, requires an external object to be aware of. Because consciousness cannot exist without an external reality to be aware of, the external reality must come before any consciousness ever exists. Therefore, there is something his philosophy terms the primacy of existence: existence always precedes consciousness.

Because there appears to be no external objects before God made them and Christians often define their deity as always being conscious, God violates the primacy of existence. Therefore, God, by definition, cannot exist; he is a logical contradiction. All the other possible arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant and automatically false (unless they prove God exists axiomatically, which no one has ever attempted because it is impossible).

 

[True Scotsman]

You are not getting the point.

What True Scotsman is arguing is that the idea of an immaterial consciousness without any external reference points is impossible. Conscious, defined by him, is the awareness of something; in order for some subject to be conscious, the subject has to be aware of an external object. There cannot be a consciousness without some external object because a consciousness, by definition, requires an external object to be aware of. Because consciousness cannot exist without an external reality to be aware of, the external reality must come before any consciousness ever exists. Therefore, there is something his philosophy terms the primacy of existence: existence always precedes consciousness.

Because there appears to be no external objects before God made them and Christians often define their deity as always being conscious, God violates the primacy of existence. Therefore, God, by definition, cannot exist; he is a logical contradiction. All the other possible arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant and automatically false (unless they prove God exists axiomatically, which no one has ever attempted because it is impossible).

Nailed it!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Arupaloka.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/arupa-loka

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, for the reasons that True Scotsman gives, I'm a strong atheist with respect to any god-concept that treats consciousness as creative rather than passive, which is to say, creating existence rather than passively reporting on what exists. This obviously extends to religions that advocate any form of Idealism.

I could be considered a weak atheist for any other sort of god-concept, assuming that it even makes sense to regard such entities as "gods".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

http://www.britannica.com/topic/arupa-loka

I'm not sure why you are mentioning this. Do you think this represents a primacy of existence view? Or a primacy of consciousness one?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

You are not getting the point.

What True Scotsman is arguing is that the idea of an immaterial consciousness without any external reference points is impossible. Conscious, defined by him, is the awareness of something; in order for some subject to be conscious, the subject has to be aware of an external object. There cannot be a consciousness without some external object because a consciousness, by definition, requires an external object to be aware of. Because consciousness cannot exist without an external reality to be aware of, the external reality must come before any consciousness ever exists. Therefore, there is something his philosophy terms the primacy of existence: existence always precedes consciousness.

Because there appears to be no external objects before God made them and Christians often define their deity as always being conscious, God violates the primacy of existence. Therefore, God, by definition, cannot exist; he is a logical contradiction. All the other possible arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant and automatically false (unless they prove God exists axiomatically, which no one has ever attempted because it is impossible).

I understand what your saying completely. However, when we apply this thinking to a fetus in the womb, there is no way to determine when the fetus becomes a conscious human. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if consciousness comes before conception or after conception. When you're able to determine this then your point of existence having to come before consciousness can be validated. Unfortunately, consciousness is one of those things that can't be proven because it is not a physical thing, you can't refute this fact, if you try to refute it, you're just being unreasonable.

Sure, I know I'm conscious, but I have to believe that you are conscious and that you would still be conscious even if I became unconscious. We already went over this earlier.

Also, you guys seem to be moving the "goal post" from my point about the singularity to consciousness. I realize how you atheists feel when talking with theists who seem unreasonable. Although, I'm not one of those unreasonable theists, I'm a reasonable Christian with a very strong faith. I don't credit myself for my faith and reason, I only credit Jesus. I suspect your going to start meeting a lot more Christians like myself and your only defense is going to be to deny God. However, if you decide to accept that God is possible you will realize I've been right this whole time.

So, it seems we've uncovered several problems here. Atheists will ignore many problems in order to maintain their beliefs. So far you've ignored the problem at the bottom of reason and you've ignored the problem of an infinitely small singularity and now your ignoring the problem of consciousness not being physical and therefore unprovable. I suspect you'll continue ignoring more problems in the future in order to continue denying the existence of God. We haven't even touched the thought that a timeless conscious entity can solve the problem in quantum physics, but I suspect you'll ignore that as well.

True Scotsman saying he knows God does not exist and that he can prove it, is probably the silliest thing I've ever heard, but not surprising, I pray for your soul.

God bless!

 

[Eudaimonist]

you've ignored the problem of an infinitely small singularity

Why are you going on about singularities? Atheists aren't required to believe in infinitely small singularities. This is your pet issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Why are you going on about singularities? Atheists aren't required to believe in infinitely small singularities. This is your pet issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Because the "smartest" atheist on the planet Stephen Hawking believes in the singularity that existed before the Big Bang. Why wouldn't I investigate his claims?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because the "smartest" atheist on the planet Stephen Hawking believes in the singularity that existed before the Big Bang. Why wouldn't I investigate his claims?

No one is saying that you shouldn't investigate his claims. His claims have nothing intrinsically to do with atheism, and atheists are under no obligation to defend the view that there was an infinitely small singularity without gods involved.

Incidentally, you are cherry-picking. There are smart atheist physicists who have other views on the matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

While we are on the subject of singularities and Stephen Hawking, this is an interesting lecture. It isn't very helpful for your case, however.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase. This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely. But it seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in classical General Relativity. This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems.
[...]
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

I recommend reading the full lecture for context. (N.B., There is an odd over-use of commas.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

While we are on the subject of singularities and Stephen Hawking, this is an interesting lecture. It isn't very helpful for your case, however.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase. This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely. But it seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in classical General Relativity. This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems.
[...]
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

I recommend reading the full lecture for context. (N.B., There is an odd over-use of commas.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

"But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time"

Here they just appealed to something outside the universe.

"But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began"

So they just appealed to something outside the universe in order to determine that they don't have to appeal to something outside the universe to determine how the universe began.

We've got some "real" thinkers out there, creating new problems that aren't even problems if they would just realize they're contradicting themselves.

Think!

 

[Eudaimonist]

"But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time"

Here they just appealed to something outside the universe.

"But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began"

So they just appealed to something outside the universe in order to determine that they don't have to appeal to something outside the universe to determine how the universe began.

We've got some "real" thinkers out there, creating new problems that aren't even problems if they would just realize they're contradicting themselves.

Think!

Incidentally, "they" is Stephen Hawking, and I recommend that you read the full lecture and not pluck sentences out of context.

Hint: he didn't contradict himself. You don't understand what imaginary time is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Incidentally, "they" is Stephen Hawking, and I recommend that you read the full lecture and not pluck sentences out of context.

Hint: he didn't contradict himself. You don't understand what imaginary time is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Really? How can anyone understand imaginary time if it is imaginary? Is this any different from me saying you don't understand God because you don't understand what God is. Don't you get it yet? Any concept in regards to the origins of the universe requires belief in that concept. However, there is only one true concept and I just happen to believe that one true concept is God. These claims about imaginary time are no different than my claims about God, its just that my claims make far more sense because I don't have to contradict myself in order to explain things.

 

[Chriliman]

It would be like me saying "You don't understand my imaginary God because He is imaginary", I would never say this because its ridiculous! I can use sound reason that makes sense to explain why I believe in God. And I've done this, read the forum again if you need "evidence".

 

[True Scotsman]

I understand what your saying completely. However, when we apply this thinking to a fetus in the womb, there is no way to determine when the fetus becomes a conscious human. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if consciousness comes before conception or after conception. When you're able to determine this then your point of existence having to come before consciousness can be validated. Unfortunately, consciousness is one of those things that can't be proven because it is not a physical thing, you can't refute this fact, if you try to refute it, you're just being unreasonable.

Sure, I know I'm conscious, but I have to believe that you are conscious and that you would still be conscious even if I became unconscious. We already went over this earlier.

Also, you guys seem to be moving the "goal post" from my point about the singularity to consciousness. I realize how you atheists feel when talking with theists who seem unreasonable. Although, I'm not one of those unreasonable theists, I'm a reasonable Christian with a very strong faith. I don't credit myself for my faith and reason, I only credit Jesus. I suspect your going to start meeting a lot more Christians like myself and your only defense is going to be to deny God. However, if you decide to accept that God is possible you will realize I've been right this whole time.

So, it seems we've uncovered several problems here. Atheists will ignore many problems in order to maintain their beliefs. So far you've ignored the problem at the bottom of reason and you've ignored the problem of an infinitely small singularity and now your ignoring the problem of consciousness not being physical and therefore unprovable. I suspect you'll continue ignoring more problems in the future in order to continue denying the existence of God. We haven't even touched the thought that a timeless conscious entity can solve the problem in quantum physics, but I suspect you'll ignore that as well.

True Scotsman saying he knows God does not exist and that he can prove it, is probably the silliest thing I've ever heard, but not surprising, I pray for your soul.

God bless!

You still do not understand the issue of primacy. Whether we can't tell when a fetus becomes conscious or not is irrelevant. I'd say at a bare minimum it is after its sense organs and brain have formed. That is irrelevant though. The fetus would have to first exist in order to be conscious.

I have proven that the Christian God does not exist irrefutably so it is not silly. And I note that you have not answered a very pertinent question: If an argument is both sound and valid, is its conclusion still in question? You have avoided answering that question. Why is that? Is it because you know that if you answer yes that the jig is up and you'll have to acknowledge that I have proved what I say I have or is it that you want to selectively apply logic? Like every theist whom I've confronted with this issue you have sought to change the subject and avoid the argument and go on as before as if the argument doesn't exist. It's as if somehow if you don't look at it, it will go away. But it won't go away and it will still exist because existence has primacy.

So to tease out an answer from you I want you to consider the following:

When you claim that a god exists, are you saying that it exists independent of your own consciousness, your wants or likes or hopes or faith? Or are you saying that your god's existence is dependent on your consciousness? Does it exist in reality or is it only a figment of your imagination?

The truth is that you make use of the primacy of existence principle every time you make any knowledge claim because you are saying that this claim of yours is true independent of anyone's consciousness, that it is objectively true. You can't avoid doing this because the principle is implicit in all knowledge statements. When you claim that God exists, you are using it. But the content of the claim contradicts it by positing a consciousness that created everything by an act of conscious will, maintains everything by an act of conscious will and can alter anything in existence by an act of conscious will. Dawson Beckrith, who has written extensively on this issue put it this way in his blog How Theism violates the Primacy of Existence.

He said:
'In response to the question “Where lies the violation in asserting that existence exists and so does God?”, recall the the point I made in my blog The Axioms and the Primacy of Existence, namely that the axiom of existence ("existence exists") is "not the only axiom, that it is not a recognition that remains isolated from other recognitions." To say "existence exists" implies the axiom of consciousness, for one would have to be conscious in order to say this. Affirming both the axiom of existence and the axiom of consciousness in turn implicitly affirms the primacy of existence: Existence exists independent of consciousness.

So in making the statement “existence exists and so does God,” one is in fact declaring “existence exists independent of consciousness, and so does this consciousness upon which existence depends,” which is a direct self-contradiction. It affirms on the one hand, explicitly, that existence exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), and on the other – in the very same breath – it affirms the existence of a consciousness on which existence depends. For as we saw in the quotes above, “God” is characterized as a consciousness which creates all existence distinct from itself by an act of will. Thus not only does this position affirm a contradiction at the level of metaphysical primacy, it also leads to the irresolvable problem of divine lonesomeness."

End quote of the great and powerful Bahnsen Burner.

The problem of divine lonesomeness is another implication of the primacy of existence and it is what Chany was pointing out in her comment to you.

So every time you claim your God exists, you are making use of and affirming the primacy of existence and in the content of the claim you are denying it. You can't claim your God exists without borrowing from my philosophy but in so doing you contradict yourself every time you do it. You steel it and secretly count on it being true to make your claim intelligible and then you throw it away. You can not hold consistently to the primacy of existence as a theist. And that's because your God is a contradiction of it.

I'm going to link you to some of Dawson's blogs about this issue. He really is the best resource on the web and maybe in the world on metaphysical primacy. And then that's all I have to say unless you actually interact with the argument I have presented. If you go off on another tangent then I'll not respond. I think I have been very patient in trying to explain this issue to you and I have provided all the proof I need to show that I am not assuming (accepting without proof) that God does not exist.

The Primacy of Existence: A Validation
The Axioms and the Primacy of Existence
Theism and Subjective Metaphysics
The Inherent Subjectivism of God-Belief
A Reply to Tenant on Theistic Foundationalism vs. the Objectivist Axioms
Dodging the Subject-Object Relationship
Confessions of a Vantillian Subjectivist
God and Square Circles
[URL='http://katholon.com/Bahnsen_Supernatural.htm']Bahnsen on “Knowing the Supernatural”[/URL]
The Cartoon Universe of Christianity
The Argument from Metaphysical Primacy: A Debate

 

[Eudaimonist]

It would be like me saying "You don't understand my imaginary God because He is imaginary", I would never say this because its ridiculous! I can use sound reason that makes sense to explain why I believe in God. And I've done this, read the forum again if you need "evidence".

Read the article! He explains what imaginary time means! Why do you think I'm telling you to read the article?

Imaginary time is a term in physics. It doesn't mean that something exists in the imagination.

You've said that you've wanted to investigate Stephen Hawking's ideas. This is a good opportunity for you. The article was written by him.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

You still do not understand the issue of primacy. Whether we can't tell when a fetus becomes conscious or not is irrelevant. I'd say at a bare minimum it is after its sense organs and brain have formed. That is irrelevant though. The fetus would have to first exist in order to be conscious.

Wouldn't it become very relevant if we could actually tell when a fetus became conscious? If you could pin point the exact moment a fetus became conscious then you could say with certainty that existence must come before consciousness, so it would become very relevant to your argument. So saying its irrelevant to your argument actually exposes your ignorance of the problem we are talking about right now. So stop saying its irrelevant, because it is very relevant.

I have proven that the Christian God does not exist irrefutably so it is not silly. And I note that you have not answered a very pertinent question: If an argument is both sound and valid, is its conclusion still in question? You have avoided answering that question. Why is that? Is it because you know that if you answer yes that the jig is up and you'll have to acknowledge that I have proved what I say I have or is it that you want to selectively apply logic? Like every theist whom I've confronted with this issue you have sought to change the subject and avoid the argument and go on as before as if the argument doesn't exist. It's as if somehow if you don't look at it, it will go away. But it won't go away and it will still exist because existence has primacy.

Thats the problem, your argument is not sound and is not valid, as I just showed in my above paragraph. So from now on when you say you have proven that the Christian God does not exist, you are actually severely deceiving yourself because your ignoring the real problem that consciousness cannot be proven to actually come after existence.

So to tease out an answer from you I want you to consider the following:

When you claim that a god exists, are you saying that it exists independent of your own consciousness, your wants or likes or hopes or faith? Or are you saying that your god's existence is dependent on your consciousness? Does it exist in reality or is it only a figment of your imagination?

I believe God exists independent of my consciousness, but He is also capable of existing within me and expressing Himself through me. This is at the very core of Christianity.

The truth is that you make use of the primacy of existence principle every time you make any knowledge claim because you are saying that this claim of yours is true independent of anyone's consciousness, that it is objectively true. You can't avoid doing this because the principle is implicit in all knowledge statements. When you claim that God exists, you are using it. But the content of the claim contradicts it by positing a consciousness that created everything by an act of conscious will, maintains everything by an act of conscious will and can alter anything in existence by an act of conscious will. Dawson Beckrith, who has written extensively on this issue put it this way in his blog How Theism violates the Primacy of Existence.

You also make use of the primacy of existence principle when you claim that God does not exist. Your also saying this primacy of existence is the answer to all knowledge, when in fact this is impossible because we humans do not know everything there is to know so even though we've come up with this primacy of existence principle it does not mean it answers all of life's questions. I've clearly shown there are more questions to be answered, you just choose to ignore the questions.

So every time you claim your God exists, you are making use of and affirming the primacy of existence and in the content of the claim you are denying it. You can't claim your God exists without borrowing from my philosophy but in so doing you contradict yourself every time you do it. You steel it and secretly count on it being true to make your claim intelligible and then you throw it away. You can not hold consistently to the primacy of existence as a theist. And that's because your God is a contradiction of it.

Question: Which came first knowledge or this primacy of existence principle? If knowledge came before the principle then shouldn't the principle be changed to primacy of knowledge principle? But consciousness is required to have knowledge so then shouldn't it be changed to the primacy of consciousness principle, but you have to exist in order to be conscious, so then it should be changed to primacy of existence, but knowledge came before the principle so it should be changed to primacy of knowledge principle and so on...

If knowledge came before the understanding of this principle couldn't that show that knowledge existence and consciousness could all possibly be infinite and timeless? Since we can't actually prove whether existence came before consciousness and if consciousness came before knowledge. What if we need to stop looking at these things in restrictions of time, what if they are all infinitely timeless?